Question Time open thread

Written By: - Date published: 3:46 pm, February 10th, 2009 - 49 comments
Categories: Parliament - Tags:

Due to popular demand, here’s an open thread for discussion of today’s Question Time. Knock yourselves out.

49 comments on “Question Time open thread ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gingercrush 1
    10 February 2009 at 3:50 pm

    I must be dumb but what was Goff referring to during question number two? Kate Wilkinson was pretty dire and Paula Bennett should use better language. Overall, though question time was weird. It was absolutely boring. I don’t think Labour asked any decent questions whatsoever and I don’t believe National answered many of the questions well whatsoever either.

  2. lukas 2
    10 February 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Initial thoughts- Wasn’t it refreshing to see an impartial Speaker?

  3. Duncan 3
    10 February 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Wilkinson was as unimpressive as ever. I honestly don’t know what Key and the rest of the party see in her. Lockwood was surprisingly good.

    I missed number two – what happened there?

  4. Pat 4
    10 February 2009 at 4:09 pm

    I liked Lockwood’s style, especially calling ministers to task to answer questions properly. This had descended into a bit of a farce towards the end of Labours term, so if he stays vigilent then Question Time will be more meaningful.

    I liked Key’s “concealment” quip about the Xmas drinks. Very funny.

    Thanks for the thread Tane. You should make it a regular.

  5. coge 5
    10 February 2009 at 4:30 pm

    I thought Bennett articulated her position well, in that she won’t tolerate any opposition nonsense. Lockwood was a breathe of fresh air & Key’s concealment jibe was very witty.

    Was it my new TV, or had Jim Anderton put on a few pounds over the festive season?

  6. @ work 6
    10 February 2009 at 5:00 pm

    “lukas
    February 10, 2009 at 3:51 pm
    Initial thoughts- Wasn’t it refreshing to see an impartial Speaker?”

    Bullshit. It was nice to see an oposition that isn’t out to actively the Speaker’s authority.

  7. lukas 7
    10 February 2009 at 5:24 pm

    @work… come again?

  8. barnsleybill 8
    10 February 2009 at 5:32 pm

    More to the point, Lockwood was not handicapped with having to manage bauble boy and his petulant pomposity, that alone removed the need for the ear splitting screech we have become accustomed to hearing from the speakers chair over the last few years..
    Simon Powers retort to Lianne Dalziel (community law question) about Labour spending 4.3 million on brass (or bronze??) plating for the new supreme court was hilarious.

  9. lukas 9
    10 February 2009 at 5:34 pm

    BB, agreed, that and JK’s line about concealing.

    I used to get so frustrated watching/listening to question time at the bias shown toward the Government by the Speaker, now it appears to be the way it should be with the Speaker favoring the opposition, or at least being neutral.

  10. bobo 10
    10 February 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Looked on the news the other day that John Key had highlights added to his hair or is my tv set playing up?

  11. @work 11
    10 February 2009 at 7:03 pm

    lukas
    @work come again?

    Opps, actively undermine

  12. Tanya 12
    10 February 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Of course Lockwood was good, not surprisingly, he will be a Speaker to be remembered, a class act, anotehr Jonathan Hunt.

  13. Felix 13
    10 February 2009 at 7:51 pm

    @work, did you accidentally the whole thing?

  14. lukas 14
    10 February 2009 at 8:16 pm

    @work, I can only assume you did not watch or listen to question time much over the last three years based on your comments here.

  15. the sprout 15
    10 February 2009 at 8:18 pm

    National’s performance today was weak and smug.
    They won’t get very far carrying on like that.

  16. TghtyRighty 16
    10 February 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Whatever Sprout. they handled themselves well. it was an encouraging performance by Lockwood too. here’s hoping he keeps it up, and that locke keeps it up too. If locke had of taken ministers to task last parliament for not answering questions, we might have found out previously about the $9m repair bill to labour’s massively over-priced prisons.

  17. Jum 17
    10 February 2009 at 9:12 pm

    barnsleybill
    February 10, 2009 at 5:32 pm
    Once again you display your ignorance and arrogance. I have frequently seen Margaret Wilson telling some Nat to behave like a civilized human being and it has never ever approached your ridiculous ‘ear-splitting screech’ description.

    I mistakenly imagined that when Helen Clark stepped down and Margaret Wilson stepped down you machos would put away your sexist descriptive language.

    It would appear Parliament is once more settling into the male chestbeating of the past. Once more we end up with a government for only half the population.

  18. northpaw 18
    10 February 2009 at 9:28 pm

    Jum,

    male chestbeating Code for hairier.. heh-heh

  19. Janet 19
    10 February 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Watch out for new Green MP Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech tomorrow Wed about 5 ish. She’s the last of the new batch of MPs and possibly the feistiest.

  20. vto 20
    10 February 2009 at 10:00 pm

    Janet, feisty is feisty. Take it to feistyland. Jum, I think that is the natural way whether manwoman or not.

  21. Felix 21
    10 February 2009 at 10:08 pm

    Lockwood spent a lot of time today explaining how he was going to make ministers answer questions and fuck all time actually following through on his words.

    If he does what he says he’ll be a bloody good speaker – I’ve noted before that he seems to take the role seriously and I believe his intentions are good but today’s effort was a bit disappointing.

    And before you all cry “wah wah butbutbut Margret Wilson did blah blah” I’m not comparing him to her. I’m holding him to his own standard, repeatedly voiced by him, and which I support.

  22. BLiP 22
    10 February 2009 at 11:19 pm

    I agree that Lockee did a good job. I only caught snatches of the session but I have to say the bugger did alright. Must be a left over from his days at W3 when the participants had to answer correctly. Treating the politicians like a bunch of kids might well be the answer to a meaningful Question Time!

    And, yes, the Goober John Key has put highlights through his hair. Must have got a new ‘do’ to go with his movin ‘ n ‘ groovin at the weekend.

  23. barnsleybill 23
    11 February 2009 at 12:09 am

    Jum, Margaret Wilson was ill equipped, inexperienced and the most partisan speaker we have ever had. The fact that she is a woman is completely irrelevant. Try thinking without first putting on the cloak of wimmin victimhood.

    Keith Locke never made this much fuss about privacy when Brash was robbed.

    And for those that missed Simon powers money shot:

    Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree in principle with the proposal for the Government to provide alternative funding for community law centres to ensure they do not need to drastically cut services at a time when demand for those services will inevitably increase; if not, why not?

    Hon SIMON POWER: I can assure the member that I am taking this matter extremely seriously. This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few who can afford to access such redress as that offered by, for example, the Supreme Court. Coincidentally, the drop in community law centres’ funding is roughly equivalent to the $4.3 million that was committed by the previous Government to the bronze plating of the new Supreme Court.

  24. Killinginthenameof 24
    11 February 2009 at 12:48 am

    barnsleybill
    Keith Locke never made this much fuss about privacy when Brash was robbed.

    That’s because he wasn’t, save that kind of bullshit for kiwiblog.

  25. John Dalley 25
    11 February 2009 at 9:50 am

    How underwhelming is Nationals 500 Mil ‘stimulus package” utter BS.

  26. Brett Dale 26
    11 February 2009 at 10:05 am

    My big problem with Parliament was with MP’s not giving direct answers to questions.
    Hopefully this can get sorted out.

  27. @ work 27
    11 February 2009 at 10:33 am

    In regards to the Community Law funding thing. I wonder if they will follow through, cancel the brass fittings at the new Supreme Court and make up the funding to Community Law. I guess we shall see if it is just grandstanding.

    I’m also wondering if National really wants to keep funding community law, One of the frustrations expressed over cases like Antony Dixon’s, the Curtis brother’s, the Kahui twin’s (or pretty much any high profile crime commited by a person with brown skin) is that they get legal representation. They are quite comfortable telling themselves that they know who did it, and we have seen how much they care about human rights and freedom, they all claim it would be much easier to put the people who (apparently) did the crimes in jail if they didn’t have defence lawyers.

    (Witholding proper legal representation from the accused is also a policy of the Sensible Sentacing Trust by the way)

  28. Matthew Pilott 28
    11 February 2009 at 11:47 am

    “My big problem with Parliament was with MP’s not giving direct answers to questions.
    Hopefully this can get sorted out.

    Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment!!

    Winston may have made it an artform, Hide a circus, but the rest of them do it by rote. Just look at BB’s perfect example above with Power – done without even thinking about it.

  29. Felix 29
    11 February 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Brett, Matthew:

    After yesterday’s directives from Lockwood I expect some very clear questions today, questions for which – according to Lockwood – only very specific answers will be acceptable.

    Let’s see if he’s all talk. If he sticks to his guns he’s to be commended – if not then it’s business as usual.

  30. lukas 30
    11 February 2009 at 1:01 pm

    Mallards question is pretty specific. I hope Lockwood does do as he said he would.

  31. TightyRighty 31
    11 February 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Mallards problem is even more specific. That dribbling, lisping, violent, hypocritical excuse for a person.

  32. @ work 32
    11 February 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Tighty, does his Intelligence and wit make you feel inadequate and out smarted, that is the consistent feature I see in people who criticize him the way you do.

  33. lukas 33
    11 February 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Heh, Mallard is not happy at the moment, continuously questioning the Speakers ruling… I am surprised he did not get his marching orders.

  34. TightyRighty 34
    11 February 2009 at 2:46 pm

    No, when compared to my own, his intelligence and wit make me feel smug and superior, especially when he gets caught throwing stones in glass houses.

  35. randal 35
    11 February 2009 at 3:08 pm

    go Trev
    the righties are always on about bludging etc etc etc but when you do YOUR job they spit the dummy
    why is that?
    and how much of the $500 million is earmarked for tory bloodsuckers?

  36. Felix 36
    11 February 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Well it seems Lockwood is all talk. There’s been no attempt to hold ministers to specific answers at all.

    Business as usual then.

  37. @ work 37
    11 February 2009 at 3:18 pm

    Can’t watch or listen to question time here at work. As I see it the only possible answer to Mallards (opps sorry about above, I was thinking Cullen for some reason!) question is: “X dollars”, just how ever much it is, it is asking for one number, no waffel or mucking around, he just wants to know a dollar ammount.

  38. Pascal's bookie 38
    11 February 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Tighty:

    No, when compared to my own, his intelligence and wit make me feel smug and superior, especially when he gets caught throwing stones in glass houses

    Cite?

  39. gobsmacked 39
    11 February 2009 at 3:49 pm

    With each Question Time, it’s becoming increasingly clear that John Key is masterminding an evil sexist conspiracy.

    He promotes more women to Cabinet, everyone says “Diversity! Equality! Girl Power!”, and then …

    … the ministers turn out to be walking disasters. So far we’ve had Tolley, Wilkinson, Collins and Bennett all demonstrate more incompetence than an Australian umpire. They’re hopeless. If they keep this up, they’ll be demolishing decades of progress. Role models? More like rolled over.

    The only way to address this sexist imbalance is for the male Ministers to match them in blithering, vacuous idiocy. John Key made a start today.

    Come on, National! Equality of incompetence, please.

  40. TightyRighty 40
    11 February 2009 at 4:42 pm

    PB, when mallard decided to make Don Brash’s private affairs very public, while his own appendage was in the non-marital honeypot. it was not known in the wider public sphere at that point. i found out a couple of weeks later from a wellington insider (for confidentiality reasons I decline to even consider naming), but it took a wee bit longer, i think about three months for the scandal to reach the media. which is surprising given hindsight.

  41. Pascal's bookie 41
    11 February 2009 at 5:42 pm

    I was looking for an example of your wit and intelligence tighty. I guess that went over your head.

    Don Brash of course can’t complain about his treatment by Mallard, (which I personally don’t like BTW). He (Brash) had digs, ridiculously as it turns out, at Helen Clark’s marriage. The rest was history. Although we should note that Mallard’s non specific comments in the house were not really reported on until the National party caucus spat the dummy, and Don shot through.

    I see Mallard’s still in the house. Where’s Brash at?

  42. TightyRighty 42
    11 February 2009 at 6:08 pm

    didn’t really want to bring up helens marriage, since i have heard something there too. in fact still not going too. it’s demeaning to everyone involved. but maybe don was…

    captcha 2008 downfall, hmm seems appropriate wouldn’t you say

  43. Felix 43
    11 February 2009 at 6:38 pm

    Pb,

    To be fair, he is demonstrating half-wit. Or is it fuck-wit?

  44. TightyRighty 44
    11 February 2009 at 8:40 pm

    typical felix, you can’t ever seem to argue a point.

    you do tend to rely on petty name calling, and by your actions reveal yourself to be the true fuckwit here. trying to frame the argument in terms of “anyone whose views do not agree with me is a half…no wait, Fuckwit” reveals a very low pseudo-intellectual desire to be a intellectual egotist.

  45. gobsmacked 45
    12 February 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Very significant development in the House today. Both Harawira and Flavell from the Maori Party asking real (non-patsy) questions of Judith Collins, and she just brushed them aside with disdain. Mana was not enhanced.

    Sooner or later her Associate Minister Pita Sharples is going to have to decide if he wants to be remembered as a demagogue’s doormat.

  46. gingercrush 46
    12 February 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Missed todays Question Time anything else of interest Gobsmacked? How was Goff. I hope he’s come up with better questions than he did Tuesday or Wednesday.

  47. Felix 47
    12 February 2009 at 4:48 pm

    Tighty, you’re discussing rumours about other peoples marriages. There’s no intellectual ground involved. You’re a fuckwit.

    gc,
    I missed it too but the podcast should be up soon if it’s not already: http://www.radionz.co.nz/parliament

  48. TightyRighty 48
    13 February 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Rumours? right, yes, of course. rumours.

    you don’t know my sources, so don’t come out all high and mighty and dismiss what i to say as rumours when you can’t really be sure. fucking dork

  49. Felix 49
    13 February 2009 at 3:43 pm

    But Tighty, they’re clearly rumours by definition. If not, then let us know what you know. If you can’t or won’t – for whatever reason – then rumours they are. Not a smart one are you?